Things we wish were true but aren’t

[Haimerej]

G didn't necessarily go that hard on Z. Z was acting in a way quite detrimental to the league's image.

That's clearly a subjective statement. "Quite detrimental" how? They lose sponsors?

You also have to square that with Hill's situation. Why is the league less worried about child abuse?

 

[kskboys]

I don't know man. Your theory seems tautological without having a true insider. I mean, Goodell is the guy responsible for discipline. Saying he's done a poor job in that role seems like a fair criticism.

You say he's supposed to absorb hate in place of the owners, but if that hate gets to be detrimental they have to get rid of him.

It's not really a theory. This is what a person does who takes on the role that Goodell has taken on. This is really just common sense.

Goodell has not done a poor job w/ discipline, he's done a great job. His job is to keep up public perception. In this case, his job is to make the public think the NFL cares. They obviously do not, but he gets the headlines instead of them. And most fans believe the NFL in general cares.

Now, that's not to say he hasn't done a bad job in individual instances. However, that is an entirely different matter than what his job has done for the NFL in general.

The hate for Goodell cannot be detrimental. It is the exact opposite, as it makes the owners more loveable. It's all public perception.

 

[lukin2006]

That Jones prioritized winning…

 

[Diehardblues]

I don't know man. Your theory seems tautological without having a true insider. I mean, Goodell is the guy responsible for discipline. Saying he's done a poor job in that role seems like a fair criticism.

You say he's supposed to absorb hate in place of the owners, but if that hate gets to be detrimental they have to get rid of him.

But the owners rewarded him. Just got another raise.

It’s the players behavior which is detrimental to the league. Goodell is in place to protect the shield for the owners. He’s there to also shield the hate and criticism from owners.

It’s only fans of these players who take issue with the leagues punishment. Perhaps you’d rather the owners just release and the league ban the players ? That’s what we basically used to do.

These suspensions were put in place to find a way to protect the leagues image satisfying the networks and sponsors ( follow the money trail) while protecting the players careers. Remember the players Union agreed to these .

 

[kskboys]

That's clearly a subjective statement. "Quite detrimental" how? They lose sponsors?

You also have to square that with Hill's situation. Why is the league less worried about child abuse?

It's all subjective.

They didn't lose sponsors because they took action.

Once again, it's not about individual cases. It's about the public perception in general. The public is watching the NFL in huge numbers, and they are not withdrawing due to certain actions by players. And that's because Goodell is doing his job.

I hv no idea why he took no action on Hill. I also thought he should have. Don't miss the fact that the Chiefs are owned by an old NFL family, the Hunt family. The NFL owners dictate Goodell's actions, which means that the more powerful owners may get leniency.

 

[kskboys]

Again, discipline is one of Goodell's clearly defined roles. Why can he not be criticized over it?

You can criticize Goodell all you want, but the criticism is misplaced. I myself absolutely hate to fall for crapp such as an obvious fall guy. If you are happy being one of those who buy into the obvious shell game, I guess that's OK.

 

[Diehardblues]

It's all subjective.

They didn't lose sponsors because they took action.

Once again, it's not about individual cases. It's about the public perception in general. The public is watching the NFL in huge numbers, and they are not withdrawing due to certain actions by players. And that's because Goodell is doing his job.

I hv no idea why he took no action on Hill. I also thought he should have. Don't miss the fact that the Chiefs are owned by an old NFL family, the Hunt family. The NFL owners dictate Goodell's actions, which means that the more powerful owners may get leniency.

Yea , it’s not always consistent. It’s about which situations are more high profile.

And is there history of the player or franchise with multiple violations.

 

[Diehardblues]

You can criticize Goodell all you want, but the criticism is misplaced. I myself absolutely hate to fall for crapp such as an obvious fall guy. If you are happy being one of those who buy into the obvious shell game, I guess that's OK.

The fact so much criticism is directed towards Goodell is a testament to how well he’s doing his job protecting the image while shielding the owners from more criticism.

 

[kskboys]

The fact so much criticism is directed towards Goodell is a testament to how well he’s doing his job protecting the image while shielding the owners from more criticism.

Absolutely. Any time I see someone hating him, I can't help but think "SUCKER".

 

[kskboys]

Yea , it’s not always consistent. It’s about which situations are more high profile.

And is there history of the player or franchise with multiple violations.

Think about how he handled the last couple of big items. He did NOTHING. Now, what did that accomplish? It kept both sides watching and throwing money at the NFL. That's what. Great job by Goodell.

 

[IceBowler]

It's only credible if you can prove it. You can't. You've just chosen to connect dots because it makes things easier to accept.

The credibility comes from watching the games .. like the one on now .. they’re still holding and blocking in the back .. just not being called. Credibility comes from Goodell’s own League investigator coming back after investigating Zeke, reporting that there was no evidence and that no suspension was warranted. Goddell then promptly suspends Jerry’s RB FOR 6 games.

You would “connect dots” too if you open your eyes.

 

[IceBowler]

Absolutely. Any time I see someone hating him, I can't help but think "SUCKER".

Saying that Goddell has been a good Commissioner tells us nothing other than the fact that you never saw football under Pete Rozelle and, to a lesser extent, Paul Tagliabue ..

 

[kskboys]

Saying that Goddell has been a good Commissioner tells us nothing other than the fact that you never saw football under Pete Rozelle and, to a lesser extent, Paul Tagliabue ..

No, it tells us that you have poor analysation skills. Manalive, did you every stop and consider exactly what could've been done better? Goodell has faced, by monstrous extent, the most challenging problems of all time by any sports commish. And it's not close. Praytell me exactly what he could've done better? And not some Zeke crapp, that was nothing but one detail.

 

[Haimerej]

It's not really a theory. This is what a person does who takes on the role that Goodell has taken on. This is really just common sense.

Saying he's not responsible for one of his clearly defined responsibilities is a theory no matter how you try to poison the well.

I don't get why people can't see this obvious truth...

Classic Kevin. You always jump in with the, "posters should be more civil," threads but never miss an opportunity for a passive aggressive insult when someone disagrees with you.

Goodell has not done a poor job w/ discipline, he's done a great job.

So now he's responsible for his decisions? What was all that nonsense about only ignoramuses believing he's responsible for his decisions?

His job is to keep up public perception. In this case, his job is to make the public think the NFL cares. They obviously do not, but he gets the headlines instead of them. And most fans believe the NFL in general cares.

I don't get why you can't just start with that. You always do this when discussing Goodell. Someone says they disagree with his decision and you attack them as clueless when you're really just avoiding the debate about the decision. The fact is you support his decision and see it as his decision.

I'd also say you buy into the same nonsense that turns fans away by saying fans want the NFL to "care." Football is bigger than the players. They already have bad reputations among fans. The simple fact Hill wasn't suspended undermines your whole point.

Now, that's not to say he hasn't done a bad job in individual instances. However, that is an entirely different matter than what his job has done for the NFL in general.

This is absurd. That, "entirely different matter," was literally the subject I was talking about. Instead of engaging with it you obfuscated and engaged in ad hominems.

The hate for Goodell cannot be detrimental. It is the exact opposite, as it makes the owners more loveable. It's all public perception.

It most certainly can be detrimental. You're creating some kind of parallel universe where the Commissioner has zero accountability for the decisions he makes.

 

[cowboyec]

cowboys/rams 2021 nfc championship game...winner plays cincinnati in the super bowl.


dang.

 

[Haimerej]

But the owners rewarded him. Just got another raise.

It’s the players behavior which is detrimental to the league. Goodell is in place to protect the shield for the owners. He’s there to also shield the hate and criticism from owners.

It’s only fans of these players who take issue with the leagues punishment. Perhaps you’d rather the owners just release and the league ban the players ? That’s what we basically used to do.

These suspensions were put in place to find a way to protect the leagues image satisfying the networks and sponsors ( follow the money trail) while protecting the players careers. Remember the players Union agreed to these .

Tyreek Hill's lack of being suspended undermines the whole premise.

 

[Haimerej]

It's all subjective.

They didn't lose sponsors because they took action.

Once again, it's not about individual cases. It's about the public perception in general. The public is watching the NFL in huge numbers, and they are not withdrawing due to certain actions by players. And that's because Goodell is doing his job.

I hv no idea why he took no action on Hill. I also thought he should have. Don't miss the fact that the Chiefs are owned by an old NFL family, the Hunt family. The NFL owners dictate Goodell's actions, which means that the more powerful owners may get leniency.

You don't know why, but you're 100% sure it wasn't his call.

 

[Haimerej]

You can criticize Goodell all you want, but the criticism is misplaced. I myself absolutely hate to fall for crapp such as an obvious fall guy. If you are happy being one of those who buy into the obvious shell game, I guess that's OK.

I guess you just don't believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

1. Kellen Moore knows what he is doing .

 

[Diehardblues]

Tyreek Hill's lack of being suspended undermines the whole premise.

Not a high profile situation. I can’t even remember what he did.